1960 (3) TMI 54 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Right of workmen to be represented by a union representative during an enquiry.
2. Validity of dismissal orders based on findings of misconduct not mentioned in the charge-sheet.
3. Specific allegations and findings against individual appellants.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Right of Workmen to be Represented by a Union Representative During an Enquiry:
The principal question raised in this appeal was whether a workman has the right to be represented by a representative of his Union during an enquiry conducted by the management. The appellants argued that fair play demands such representation for examination and cross-examination of witnesses and for ensuring proper records of the proceedings. However, the court concluded that a workman against whom an enquiry is being held by the management has no right to be represented by a representative of his Union. The court noted that such enquiries are not akin to court proceedings and typically involve straightforward questions of fact, which a person of fair intelligence and knowledge of the industry can handle. The court emphasized that the general practice in domestic tribunals is for the accused to conduct their own case, and natural justice does not necessitate union representation. The employer may allow such representation at their discretion, but it is not a right.

2. Validity of Dismissal Orders Based on Findings of Misconduct Not Mentioned in the Charge-sheet:
The appellants contended that the dismissal orders were invalid as they were based on findings of misconduct not mentioned in the charge-sheet. The court examined several instances:

- Charan Singh, Parmanand, and K. Ganguli: The Enquiry Officer found them guilty of participating in an illegal strike, leaving their appointed place of duty, and inciting other employees to strike work, but not of behaving in a riotous and disorderly manner by shouting slogans on the shop floor. The court held that even excluding the misconduct not mentioned in the charge-sheet, the manager would have dismissed them based on the proven charges.

- S. B. Nath: The dismissal order mentioned "entering the Works when not on duty" as a misconduct, which was not in the charge-sheet. The court clarified that this was intended to describe the manner of inciting other employees to strike work and did not affect the validity of the order.

- M. R. Ghosh: The charge-sheet included "threatening and intimidating other workers in the Repair Shop," with particulars mentioning stopping the Compressor man from working. The court found that the dismissal order's reference to this act was consistent with the charge-sheet, though worded differently.

- Gurbux Singh: The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of threatening and intimidating Charan Singh, but the dismissal order mentioned intimidating Mr. Chakravarty. The court determined that this was a clerical error, as the evidence and report supported the finding of intimidating Chakravarty.

- S. K. Dhanda: The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of three charges but not of threatening and intimidating another coworker. The formal dismissal order incorrectly included this fourth charge. The court noted that the General Manager's recorded order acknowledged the unproven fourth charge but still justified dismissal based on the other serious charges. The clerical error in the formal order did not affect its validity.

3. Specific Allegations and Findings Against Individual Appellants:
The court examined the specific allegations and findings against each appellant:

- Charan Singh, Parmanand, and K. Ganguli: Found guilty of participating in an illegal strike, leaving their appointed place of duty, and inciting other employees to strike work. The court upheld the dismissal orders.

- S. B. Nath: Found guilty of inciting other employees to strike work. The mention of "entering the Works when not on duty" did not invalidate the order.

- M. R. Ghosh: Found guilty of the charges in the charge-sheet, including preventing the Compressor man from working. The dismissal order was consistent with the charge-sheet.

- Gurbux Singh: Clerical error in the report did not mislead the General Manager. The dismissal was based on intimidating Chakravarty, not Charan Singh.

- S. K. Dhanda: The General Manager acknowledged the unproven fourth charge but dismissed him based on the other serious charges. The clerical error in the formal order did not affect its validity.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the contentions regarding the right to union representation and the validity of dismissal orders based on findings not mentioned in the charge-sheet. The separate contentions on behalf of the appellants were also not sustained. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.